[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15965-15979]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
         RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 2012--Continued


                     Amendment No. 781, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes, equally divided, prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 
781, as modified, authored by the Senator from Louisiana.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I will do my best to start the pace 
around

[[Page 15966]]

here. I am going to ask for a voice vote, and I would hope people would 
give a shout out for a ``yea'' vote for a narrow exception to a 
wetlands project for nonprofits with a permit to build. That is what 
this amendment does. There is no opposition.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator wish to modify her amendment?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 83, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       Sec. 7__.  For fiscal year 2012, section 363 of the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2006e) 
     shall not apply to a project funded under the community 
     facilities programs authorized under such Act.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The question on agreeing to the amendment, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 781), as modified, was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 755

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes, equally divided, 
on amendment No. 755.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. I accept a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any further debate?
  All time is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 755) was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 917 to Amendment No. 857

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on amendment No. 917, the 
Vitter second-degree amendment.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I call up the Vitter second-degree 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 917 to amendment No. 857.

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To reestablish the maximum aggregate amount permitted to be 
        provided by the taxpayers to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac)

       On page 5, strike line 14 and insert the following:

     2011'' and inserting ``December 31, 2013''.

     SEC. __. REESTABLISHMENT OF MAXIMUM AGGREGATE AMOUNT 
                   PERMITTED TO BE PROVIDED BY THE TAXPAYERS TO 
                   FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC.

       (a) Maximum Aggregate Amount of Commitment.--No funds may 
     be provided by the Department of the Treasury or any other 
     agency or entity of the Federal Government to the Federal 
     National Mortgage Association or the Federal Home Loan 
     Mortgage Corporation, as part of the Amended and Restated 
     Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement, dated September 
     26, 2008, amended May 6, 2009, and further amended December 
     24, 2009 (as such agreement may be further amended), between 
     the Department of the Treasury and the Federal National 
     Mortgage Association or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage 
     Corporation, as applicable, under any other agreement between 
     the Federal National Mortgage Association or the Federal Home 
     Loan Mortgage Corporation and the Department of the Treasury, 
     or otherwise, that exceed a maximum aggregate amount of 
     $200,000,000,000.
       (b) Payments to Treasury.--Any dividend or interest payment 
     made by the Federal National Mortgage Association or the 
     Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation to the Department of 
     the Treasury pursuant to any applicable contract, agreement, 
     or provision of law shall not be included in the calculation 
     of the aggregate amount of a commitment under subsection (a).
       (c) Enforcement.--The Director of the Federal Housing 
     Finance Agency shall take such actions as the Administrator 
     determines are necessary to prevent the Federal National 
     Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage 
     Corporation from requesting or receiving any funds that 
     exceed the limit provided in subsection (a).
       (d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the terms 
     ``deficiency amount'' and ``surplus amount'' have the 
     meanings provided such terms in the applicable Senior 
     Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement described in subsection 
     (a), as amended through December 24, 2009.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this is a second-degree amendment to the 
Menendez amendment. The Menendez amendment would actually expand the 
already dominant role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the mortgage 
marketplace when there is an unlimited taxpayer bailout liability 
toward that.
  My amendment would simply say, particularly if there is going to be 
this expansion, we should limit taxpayer liability to $200 billion, and 
the taxpayer should definitely be paid the dividend they were promised. 
I think that is a very reasonable taxpayer protection.
  I reserve the remainder of my time for the ranking member of Banking.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to speak for 45 seconds on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Vitter 
amendment. The amendment will limit the taxpayers' exposure to the 
bailout of Fannie and Freddie. No more blank checks. We have already 
spent $169 billion in taxpayer dollars; $200 billion is more than 
enough. Think about it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, this amendment would 
essentially force the wind-down of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 
prematurely without any structure to take their place. The Banking 
Committee has heard from witnesses, including Dwight Jaffee and Mark 
Zandi, that taking over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the only 
options the government would have to avoid a complete market collapse. 
This amendment could plunge us back into the panic of 2008, when credit 
was unavailable and the economy was on the verge of collapse. Mortgages 
would not be finalized, home sales could not go through, and the home 
owners would be unable to refinance.
  The Vitter amendment would eliminate any stability we have achieved 
in the housing market. The Vitter amendment is an irresponsible 
response to the housing crisis, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from 
the National Association of Realtors, and a letter from the Mortgage 
Bankers Association.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  Mortgage Bankers


                                                  Association,

                                 Washington, DC, October 20, 2011.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, US Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, US Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Reid and McConnell: I am writing to express 
     the Mortgage Bankers Association's strong opposition to an 
     amendment being offered by Senator Vitter to the Menendez/
     Isakson amendment #857 to the Transportation, Housing and 
     Urban Development Appropriations Bill currently being 
     considered by the Senate. The Vitter amendment would 
     reestablish the cap on the amount of capital Treasury could 
     provide to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. If adopted, this 
     amendment would severely undermine investor and market 
     certainty in our nation's housing markets.
       Private capital has yet to return to the secondary market 
     at volumes that would sustain a sufficient level of 
     liquidity. Establishing an arbitrary cap on the amount 
     necessary to preserve the GSEs' presence in the market would 
     unnecessarily constrain some of the only sources of liquidity 
     during this volatile period in the nation's economy. MBA 
     urges a no vote on the Vitter second degree amendment to the 
     Menendez amendment.
           Sincerely,

                                             David H. Stevens,

                            President and Chief Executive Officer,
     Mortgage Bankers Association.
                                  ____

         National Association of Homebuilders and National 
           Association of Realtors,
                                                 October 20, 2011.
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: It has come to our attention that Senator 
     Vitter is asking for a second degree amendment to Menendez/
     Isakson

[[Page 15967]]

     #857 that will cap the lending authority for Fannie Mae and 
     Freddie Mac from the US Treasury. Please be aware that the 
     National Association of Homebuilders and the National 
     Association of REALTORS adamantly oppose the Vitter 
     Amendment.
       Housing markets remain fragile. Despite record low interest 
     rates, existing home sales for September were down and 
     contract failures are more than double last year's rates. The 
     Vitter amendment would devastate any housing recovery. The 
     amendment would shut down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at the 
     very time that they are providing valuable support to a 
     struggling housing market.
       At their current rate, including the punitive ten percent 
     dividend they are required to pay, they may reach this cap in 
     short order, ending their ability to provide liquidity to 
     mortgage markets. Private entities simply do not have the 
     capacity to fill the void. Passage of this amendment would be 
     catastrophic to housing markets and would most likely cause a 
     relapse recession.
       Please vote NO on the Vitter Amendment.
           Sincerely,
     National Association of Homebuilders,
     National Association of REALTORS.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I yield back the time, and ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to Amendment No. 917.
  Under the previous order, the Senate amendment requires 60 votes for 
adoption.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. BURR (when his name was called). ``Present.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Webb) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 57, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 179 Leg.]

                                YEAS--41

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Boozman
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--57

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heller
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Burr
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Webb
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 41, the nays are 57. 
One Senator responded ``present.''
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
amendment, the amendment is rejected.


                           Amendment No. 857

  The question is on the underlying Menendez amendment. There is 2 
minutes, evenly divided. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to advise me when 30 
seconds has passed by.
  The Menendez-Isakson amendment would temporarily restore conforming 
loan limits to the level that existed under the law as of September 30 
but expired. The drop in loan limits has reduced consumer credit in 669 
counties across 42 States. The amendment as we have drafted it will 
save taxpayers $11 million over 10 years, including $2 million in 
fiscal year 2012, according to the CBO, by creating a premium that 
borrowers have to pay as a result of getting the loan, therefore 
putting the risk on the borrower, not the taxpayer. If we want to get 
our economy moving, the housing market has to be part of it.
  I yield to my distinguished colleague from Georgia, Senator Isakson.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ninety seconds.
  Mr. ISAKSON. It is going to be tough, but let me say there is a 15-
basis point fee on every loan that closes on this that goes into the 
credit that is issued by Fannie, Freddie or FHA; it makes the taxpayer 
whole, plus $11 million. It is right for the housing market. It takes 
us back to where we were. It doesn't add any additional liability.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute. I urge my 
colleagues to vote against the Menendez amendment. If this amendment 
becomes law, taxpayers will be forced to subsidize individuals who make 
upward of $200,000 a year so they may buy homes worth nearly $1 
million. That is what this is about. Increasing the loan limits will 
only benefit those who do not need Federal subsidies.
  This is simply not a good use of scarce taxpayer dollars. Even the 
administration does not support higher loan limits here. It is a bad 
amendment.
  I yield my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, 60 votes are 
required for the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. BURR (when his name was called). ``Present.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Webb) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 38, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 180 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heller
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--38

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Boozman
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Burr
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Webb
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the ayes are 60, the nays are 
38, 1 Senator voting ``present.''
  The amendment is agreed to.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, this is a point of personal privilege or 
a parliamentary inquiry. Due to the rate at

[[Page 15968]]

which we are voting on amendments that are pending, can the 
Parliamentarian or the leadership share with us, after, say, 1 hour and 
45 minutes on four votes, what it might look like for the rest of the 
night?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I know how frustrating it is for everyone. 
This is not a question for the Parliamentarian. We are doing our best 
to work through these votes. They are 10-minute votes. We are doing our 
utmost to maintain that time and will continue to do that. We are sorry 
that close votes, as everyone knows, sometimes take a little bit 
longer. So I apologize to my friend from Louisiana and everyone else. 
We will move through the votes as quickly as we can.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. May I respectfully make one suggestion. Three options: 
Stick to 10 minutes, we can voice vote, or we can withdraw, all of 
which would rapidly speed up the process.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I wish I had thought of saying that.


                           Amendment No. 869

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next amendment is the Gillibrand amendment 
No. 869.
  The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment because we have all seen how these storms have destroyed 
crops, farmland. There have been enormous economic losses in State 
after State.
  Texas: 98 percent of the State is experiencing drought.
  Mississippi: Farmers wade through acres of murky water; timber, 
catfish farms inundated.
  New York State: Crops destroyed, cows destroyed.
  Tennessee: Unprecedented levels of rainfall.
  This money is literally the difference between life and death for 
these farmers.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I request a voice 
vote.
  Would Senator Blunt like to address the Chamber?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If all time is yielded back, the question is 
on agreeing to the Gillibrand amendment.
  All those in favor, say aye.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  At this moment, there is not a sufficient second.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, would the clerk please call the roll and 
see if a quorum is present. I believe a quorum is present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll to ascertain the 
presence of a quorum.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Point of personal privilege. Could we call the roll 
faster?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the call of the 
quorum be terminated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays on the Gillibrand amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Webb) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 181 Leg.]

                                YEAS--58

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--41

     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Boozman
     Burr
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Webb
       
  The amendment (No. 869) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, we would be much more efficient here if we 
have 10-minute votes. It is very difficult for those who are doing the 
work for us to determine who is voting which way, to hear us. People 
are moving around. I think it will be to everyone's advantage if we all 
sit down and make sure these are really 10-minute votes. It would make 
it so much easier for the tally clerks and for everyone concerned. So I 
would ask that we all be ladies and gentlemen, take our seats. This 
will move much more efficiently.


                           Amendment No. 836

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the Lautenberg amendment 
No. 836. There is now 2 minutes of debate evenly divided.
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, this amendment increases funding for 
disaster relief grants at the Economic Development Administration. 
Forty-eight States have received a Federal disaster declaration this 
year and may be eligible for this relief. EDA funds rebuild sewers and 
drinking water systems, coordinate response and recovery plans, and 
help businesses to recover. This year alone, we have experienced a 
record 10 natural disasters costing more than $1 billion each. 
Hurricane Irene caused more than $7 billion in damage alone.
  In 2008, we gave EDA $500 million to respond to disasters in the 
South and the Midwest. This amendment would give EDA the same amount 
this year. The amendment complies with the disaster relief provision in 
the Budget Control Act and is not offset with cuts from other programs.
  Senators Sanders, Menendez, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, and Leahy are 
cosponsors, and Chairman Mikulski supports it as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 1 minute.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is not a sufficient second.
  If all time is yielded back, the question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 836) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                     Amendment No. 771, as Modified

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, the next amendment is amendment No. 
771; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, this amendment will increase funding 
for the U.S. Trade Representative's Office to the level the President 
requested, also to the level the House appropriators have proposed. It 
adds nearly $4.5 million to the budget for the U.S. Trade 
Representative's Office. This is funding that is needed to enforce our 
trade agreements. We just entered into three new free-trade agreements. 
They need the personnel in order to try to enforce these. We have a 
great many trade disputes with China--all of us are aware of that--and 
other major industrial countries as well.
  This amendment has the support of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the 
Farm Bureau, and the National Pork Producers Council.

[[Page 15969]]

  This is good legislation which I hope all Senators will support.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  If all time is yielded back, the question is on agreeing to the 
amendment, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 771), as modified, was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 810

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next amendment is the Sessions amendment 
No. 810.
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, the fastest growing large program we 
have by far is the Food Stamp Program. It has gone from $20 billion to 
$80 billion since 2001, grown four times. It has doubled since 2008. 
This year proposes another $10 billion increase--14 percent. One of the 
big reasons is that we have a growing utilization of categorical 
eligibility where if one qualifies for LIHEAP, TANF, counseling 
programs, and any number of other governmental relationships, one also 
qualifies for food stamps. CBO scores this as costing as much as $10 
billion over 10 years.
  This is a good-government amendment. You can get food stamps. Nobody 
would be eliminated. You simply have to go to the office and fill out 
the form and show that you meet the food stamp qualifications and not 
get by having met other qualifications that are less stringent. I 
really believe it is a good amendment and would help us save some money 
and make this program more effective.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, first of all, I completely agree with 
Senator Sessions. We need to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in the 
supplemental food program, as in every Federal program.
  I wish to commend the USDA now for having less than a 4-percent error 
rate, and we are going to continue to push them to go down even 
further. Why? Because right now we have people who have paid taxes all 
their lives, who had never in their wildest dreams thought they would 
ever need help putting food on their table, and they do. We cannot 
afford to waste even one dollar.
  My colleague mentioned on the floor several times a lottery winner in 
Michigan who got food assistance. He is right, it was outrageous. The 
State changed it, and we are changing it in the upcoming farm bill. But 
the reality is that this amendment, the Sessions amendment, completely 
changes the structure of the food assistance program, putting up 
barriers to hard-working, honest men, women, and children who need 
help, most of them for the first time in their entire lives.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am disappointed that with so many 
Americans struggling in difficult economic times, we are considering 
amendments that will greatly reduce the ability of the neediest among 
us to put food on the table for their families. The amendment numbered 
810 filed by Senator Sessions would eliminate the ability of States to 
align the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, eligibility 
rules with the temporary assistance to needy families to reduce 
administrative costs and simply enrollment.
  Since 2008, Vermont has used categorical eligibility to reach more 
households and more needy individuals by simplifying enrollment. 
Reducing administrative costs and simplifying paperwork should be a 
goal we all share for Federal programs. But by adopting this amendment, 
about 1 million low-income Americans would lose their benefits and many 
more families that are newly eligible during these difficult economic 
times would have their benefits delayed because of the increased 
complexity of the additional processing time for applications.
  Low-income working families with children are the majority of those 
who would be affected by the elimination of categorical eligibility. 
Additionally, roughly 200,000 children in these families would lose 
access to free school meals.
  Improving the error rate even further in the SNAP program is an issue 
that the Agriculture Committee is committed to addressing in the 
upcoming farm bill negotiations, and one that we have already heard to 
chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee speak about this week. 
Eliminating State flexibility through categorical eligibility programs 
does not address error rates in any meaningful way. Supporters of this 
amendment cite limited examples as proof that categorical eligibility 
is at the root of erroneous enrollments in SNAP. But allowing millions 
to go hungry because of a few anecdotal stories is shortsighted at 
best.
  The Senate Agriculture Committee, which I am proud to be a senior 
member of, will be looking for additional ways to improve SNAP in the 
coming months, but eliminating categorical eligibility as this 
amendment does is not the answer. I urge all Senators to oppose this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Webb) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 58, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 182 Leg.]

                                YEAS--41

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Kyl
     Lee
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--58

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Webb
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 41, the nays are 88. 
Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
amendment, the amendment is rejected.


                           Amendment No. 791

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next amendment is the Coburn amendment No. 
791.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, we have 2,705 people in this country who 
had adjusted gross incomes in excess of $2.5 million last year who got 
farm payments--direct farm payments. This is an amendment that will 
limit adjusted gross incomes above $1 million from receiving direct 
payments.
  We hear we are going to change that system. We may change that 
system. But that has not happened yet. All this amendment says, if you 
make more than $1 million, you should not be eligible to receive a 
direct farm payment from this government. Rather than taxing the 
millionaires, the first thing we ought to do is quit giving them 
subsidies.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, let me just indicate that the House and

[[Page 15970]]

Senate Agriculture Committee leaders have come together in a 
bipartisan, bicameral basis to recommend reforms in our farm commodity 
programs that will, frankly, make this amendment a moot point. I would 
ask my colleagues to vote no and to give us the next 10 days to come 
forward with the new approach we will be offering.
  I will now yield to my friend and colleague on the Agriculture 
Committee, Senator Roberts.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the chairwoman for yielding. The Senator from 
Oklahoma has a good intent, but he is adding in a payment limit on top 
of two others. It is going to be difficult to implement and 
administrate from the Department of Agriculture's standpoint. The 
Senator from Michigan is exactly right. He is limiting programs for 
which there probably will not be any programs. I suggest we do this 
during the reauthorization of the farm bill, and then I would encourage 
the Senator to come at that particular time and figure out what is in 
the farm bill and what is not, what payment limitation is appropriate 
and what is not.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 16 seconds remaining.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, $1 million a year and we are giving them 
money. We have a $1.3 trillion deficit, and we continue to hear the 
defense of that. It would be great if we do a new farm program. But the 
fact is, that is not a given. If we pass this amendment and we do a new 
farm bill, this amendment has no effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The proponent's time has expired.
  Mr. COBURN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Webb) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 84, nays 15, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 183 Leg.]

                                YEAS--84

     Akaka
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coats
     Coburn
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Lee
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Paul
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--15

     Alexander
     Baucus
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Leahy
     Moran
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Stabenow
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Webb
       
  The amendment (No. 791) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 792

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate, equally 
divided, on the Coburn amendment No. 792.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, there are 4,000 properties in the United 
States that get money from HUD for housing to help people whom we want 
to help. There are 450 owners who are chronically on the list of 
slumlords, who put the people who live in these houses in danger; they 
are at high risk for losing their lives in that property.
  This amendment only says that if you are going to continue to put 
these people at risk of losing their lives, then we are not going to 
pay you anymore. We are not going to send you money if you continue to 
be in this group of slumlords who are not spending any of their money 
bringing their properties up to date and you are leaving people at risk 
of significant harm. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Coburn for his passion on 
this issue. He has raised valid concerns about the bad actors who are 
part of the Federal program.
  The problem is, the way this is drafted, it goes too far. This 
amendment puts the tenants at risk. It will put the tenants out of a 
place to live.
  Earlier, I offered to work with the Senator to address the issue in a 
way that would make sure we protect residents. We were not able to get 
to a resolution. I hope we can continue to work on this. This 
amendment, as drafted, will put the tenants at risk and out. If once in 
5 years a HUD property falls under the troubled category, the tenants 
will be at risk.
  I ask my colleagues to reject this amendment. I offer to work with 
the Senator to address this in a way that gets after the problem he has 
defined.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, they did offer, but they told us they 
didn't have the time to work it out.
  The fact is, these are life-threatening emergencies. If one person 
dies because we don't do this, it is on our hands.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second. There is a 60-vote threshold on this 
vote.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Webb) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 184 Leg.]

                                YEAS--59

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wicker

                                NAYS--40

     Akaka
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Webb
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 59, the nays are 
40. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of 
this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.


                           Amendment No. 796

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, is the next ordered amendment No. 796?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. COBURN. Might I be recognized?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. This is an amendment that addresses something that is 
going

[[Page 15971]]

on that I think we should not allow. We have a lot of great programs 
that help a lot of cities and States out by creating loans that allow 
the cities and States to do something. What is happening is, when the 
project we gave the loan for fails, they turn around and take Federal 
grants to repay the loan.
  All this amendment does is to prohibit us from allowing grants to be 
used to repay Federal loans on local or city or State projects.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I have concerns about the way this amendment 
is worded. It may have serious consequences on disaster funding. I am 
prepared to have a voice vote on this issue.
  Mr. COBURN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 796.
  Under the previous order, the amendment requires 60 votes for 
adoption.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Webb) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 73, nays 26, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 185 Leg.]

                                YEAS--73

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lee
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--26

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Cantwell
     Conrad
     Durbin
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Whitehouse

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Webb
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 73 and the nays are 
26. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of 
this amendment, the amendment is agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 753

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent notwithstanding the 
previous order the Senate now proceed to vote in relation to the Ayotte 
amendment No. 753, and all other provisions of the previous order 
remain in effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Republican leader and I had a meeting 
here a few minutes ago. Following this vote we will have more 
information for the body.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, our country continues to be at war with 
members of al-Qaida, enemy combatants who want to kill Americans and 
that is why Congress authorized the use of military force to combat 
these individuals. My amendment applies to the worst of the worst. It 
would prohibit the use of funds for fiscal year 2012 for the 
prosecution of enemy combatants in civilian article III courts. This 
prohibition would extend to members of al-Qaida or affiliated entities, 
and who have participated or carried out an attack against our country 
or our coalition partners. It does not apply to American citizens.
  These individuals, enemy combatants, are not common criminals who 
just robbed a liquor store. When we detain a member of al-Qaida who is 
planning an attack on our country, the priority has to be on gathering 
information to protect Americans. I have great respect for our civilian 
court system, but it was not set up to allow the time to interrogate 
members of al-Qaida. We should not be trying these individuals in our 
civilian system but in military commissions. We should not be providing 
these terrorists Miranda rights and speedy presentment rights that come 
with our civilian system.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment. This is a very 
different amendment from the one we adopted in our Armed Services 
Committee relative to detention. This amendment was rejected on a 
strong bipartisan vote in the Armed Services Committee. The reasons are 
set forth in a letter from the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Panetta, who 
wrote us:

       If we are to safeguard the American people, we must be in a 
     position to employ every lawful instrument of national 
     power--including both courts and military commissions--to 
     ensure that terrorists are brought to justice and can no 
     longer threaten American lives. By depriving us of one of our 
     most potent weapons in the fight against terrorism, the 
     Ayotte amendment would make it more likely that terrorists 
     would escape justice and innocent lives would be put at risk.

  They have been successfully prosecuted. Recently in Detroit a 
terrorist was successfully prosecuted in an article III court. We 
should not deny the prosecutors this tool.
  I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Illinois, Mr. 
Durbin.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there have been over 300 successful 
prosecutions of accused terrorists since 9/11; 200 under President 
Bush, 100 under President Obama, all in article III courts; only 3 
prosecutions in military commissions. Give the President the power he 
needs to keep America safe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The time of the Senator has 
expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Ms. AYOTTE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  This is a 60-vote threshold.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Webb) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 186 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown (MA)
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--52

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Paul
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

[[Page 15972]]



                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Webb
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays are 
52. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of the 
amendment, it is rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, as I indicated, the Republican leader and I 
met prior to the last vote. We understand there has been tremendous 
progress made. This is something for those of us who have been in the 
Senate a while that brings back a lot of memories. This is the way we 
did things in the past. It is difficult, but it moves legislation. It 
has been inconvenient for everyone.
  Before moving to this consent agreement, the most difficult time is 
for our staffs. They have worked the last two days as hard as people 
can work, led by Gary Myrick on my side, David Schiappa on the other 
side. Other staff has worked very hard, but they have been exemplary 
people to help us move it.
  Here is the consent agreement. I hope everyone will agree with this.
  I ask consent that the next vote on our sequence be the cloture vote 
with respect to the substitute amendment No. 738; that if cloture is 
invoked, the substitute amendment be agreed to and it be considered 
original text for the purposes of further amendment; that the remaining 
amendments which were scheduled for votes under the previous order 
remain in order notwithstanding cloture having been invoked; that when 
the Senate resumes consideration of H.R. 2112 on Tuesday, November 1, 
the Senate proceed to votes on the remaining amendments; and that all 
other provisions of the previous order remain in effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEVIN. An inquiry. I will not object. Does that mean 60 votes are 
required under the current order and continue to be required?
  Mr. REID. All elements of the previous order are in effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                             CLOTURE MOTION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close the debate on amendment No. 
     738 to H.R. 2112, an Act making appropriations for 
     Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, 
     and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2012, and for other purposes.
         Harry Reid, Herb Kohl, Daniel Inouye, Sheldon Whitehouse, 
           Jack Reed, Robert Menendez, Jeff Bingaman, Barbara 
           Mikulski, Patty Murray, Debbie Stabenow, Richard 
           Durbin, Sherrod Brown, Richard Blumenthal, Bernard 
           Sanders, Robert Casey, Jr., Jeff Merkley, Patrick 
           Leahy, Tom Harkin.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call 
has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate on 
amendment No. 738 offered by the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, to H.R. 
2112, an act making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, 
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes shall be 
brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the role.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Webb), is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 82, nays 16, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 187 Leg.]

                                YEAS--82

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--16

     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Hatch
     Heller
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     McCain
     Risch
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Toomey
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Paul
     Webb
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 82, the nays are 
16. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Under the previous order, the substitute amendment (No. 738) is 
agreed to.
  The Republican leader.


                    Tribute to Carl H. Lindner, Jr.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I rise to mourn the passing of a 
great American and a man who did much to benefit the people of Kentucky 
as well as Ohio. Carl Henry Lindner, Jr., was Greater Cincinnati's most 
successful entrepreneur and a self-made man. He passed away this 
October 17. He was 92 years old.
  Carl Lindner was born in Dayton, OH, in 1919, the son of a dairyman. 
He quit high school to help out in his father's dairy. That store grew 
into United Dairy Farmers, a chain of dairy and convenience stores that 
many northern Kentuckians frequent to this day to buy their famous ice 
cream.
  Mr. Lindner made much of his living in the banking and insurance 
business. His name became famous across northern Kentucky and Ohio and 
nationwide as the owner of the Cincinnati Reds from 1999 to 2005. Carl 
also ran an amusement park and his hometown newspaper, the Cincinnati 
Enquirer.
  Always the optimist, Carl was famous for carrying cards with him that 
he would hand out to anyone he met with motivational sayings printed on 
them. One frequent version of the card would read: ``Only in America! 
Gee, am I lucky!''
  Carl spent much of his time working for his community, bringing 
thousands of high-paying jobs to Cincinnati and northern Kentucky. He 
has been called a ``one-man Chamber of Commerce.'' He also was renowned 
for his philanthropic efforts. He gave generously of his time and 
resources to charities, churches, universities, museums, organizations 
serving the underprivileged, and even children in Sri Lanka orphaned by 
the 2005 tsunami.
  I had the benefit of knowing Carl for a long time very well. He was 
an amazing man, and his loss will be deeply felt by many. Elaine and I 
send our condolences to his wife Edyth; his sons, Carl III, Craig, and 
Keith; his 12 grandchildren, 5 great grandchildren, and many other 
beloved family members and friends.
  The passing of Carl Lindner is a true loss for the people of northern 
Kentucky, Ohio, and the Nation. I know my Senate colleagues join me in 
remembering and honoring Carl for his very American success story, his 
service to his community, and the example he leaves behind for others 
of a full life well lived.
  Madam President, the Cincinnati Enquirer recently published an 
obituary of Carl Lindner. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in 
full in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page 15973]]



             [From the Cincinnati Enquirer, Oct. 18, 2011]

                     Carl Henry Lindner: 1919-2011

 Billionaire Investor, Dead at 92, Was Cincinnati's Biggest Benefactor

                            (By Cliff Peale)

       From humble beginnings running his father's dairy store in 
     Norwood, Carl Henry Lindner Jr. grew into a billionaire, a 
     friend of U.S. presidents and Greater Cincinnati's most 
     successful entrepreneur.
       For nearly a century until he died late Monday at age 92, 
     the former Reds owner never shed the fierce competitiveness 
     and loyalty that made him a hometown icon.
       His influence ran to every corner of Greater Cincinnati. 
     The high-school dropout bought and sold Kings Island, the 
     Reds, Provident Bank and the Enquirer. His name is on 
     buildings from the University of Cincinnati's business school 
     to the tennis center at Lunken Playfield.
       But it was the banking and insurance business that made him 
     a billionaire. At his death, his American Financial Group 
     Inc. controlled assets of nearly $32 billion and he was 
     routinely listed as one of the richest men in America.
       Ever the optimist, Lindner often carried an inch-thick 
     stack of cards with motivational sayings--one was ``Only in 
     America! Gee, am I lucky!''--that he handed out to anyone he 
     would meet.
       He was a teetotaler, physically unimposing yet with a 
     prominent shock of white hair and a penchant for wearing 
     flashy neckties.
       Even to his closest friends and colleagues, he was soft-
     spoken and rarely confrontational. Yet some business partners 
     complained about unfair treatment and he flashed a harsh 
     temper when confronting reporters who wrote what he perceived 
     as unfriendly stories or criticism of his business dealings.
       A devout Baptist and a longtime member of Kenwood Baptist 
     Church, Lindner used his wealth and influence behind the 
     scenes to become Greater Cincinnati's largest benefactor and 
     economic development force. At the height of his personal 
     giving he contributed millions of dollars a year to 
     charitable causes, and brought thousands of high-paying jobs 
     to downtown Cincinnati.
       His companies brought thousands of employees to the region, 
     and the annual Christmas party that he threw at Music Hall 
     attracted some of the nation's biggest acts, including Bill 
     Cosby and Frank Sinatra.


                      Considered himself outsider

       At the same time, Lindner thought of himself as an 
     outsider, building his business career outside of 
     Cincinnati's old-money elite. He was never a member of many 
     of the most exclusive business and country clubs and his bar-
     the-doors business style, starting with a hostile takeover of 
     Provident Bank in the mid-1960s, was out of place in always 
     polite Cincinnati.
       Perhaps the most public role of his career was his 
     ownership of the Cincinnati Reds from 1999 to 2005. Lindner 
     owned a minority stake both before and after that period but 
     was the Reds' CEO for six seasons, and each of those years 
     the team lost more games than it won.
       He approved the trade for Ken Griffey Jr. in 2000, even 
     sending his private jet to bring Griffey to Cincinnati and 
     then personally driving the hometown star back to Cinergy 
     Field from Lunken Airport in his Rolls-Royce.
       But as the Reds' losses mounted, Lindner never spoke 
     publicly to fans and privately bristled at talk-radio 
     criticism.
       That period ended in late 2005 when Lindner sold a 
     controlling stake in the Reds to a group headed by Bob 
     Castellini.
       Shy and scornful of reporters, Lindner nevertheless became 
     a focus of media attention because of his substantial wealth 
     and his far-flung business dealings.
       The controversies included millions of dollars in political 
     contributions as his Chiquita Brands International Inc. was 
     waging a trade war with European countries, a bevy of 
     lawsuits and federal charges over business deals that 
     benefited Lindner and his company more than other 
     shareholders, and a high-profile battle with the Enquirer in 
     1998 over a series of critical stories on Chiquita.
       Lindner built a national reputation in the 1980s as a high-
     risk trader, becoming a business partner of symbols of the 
     decade's excess such as junk-bond king Michael Milken and 
     Cincinnati's own Charles Keating.
       He was the classic ``value investor,'' buying properties 
     few other investors wanted and waiting years, or even 
     decades, to reap the benefits.
       That gave him a portfolio including the old Penn Central 
     railroad, Circle K convenience stores and New York City 
     landmark Grand Central Station.
       But Lindner spent the two decades before his death shedding 
     assets that didn't deal with insurance and transferring 
     others to his three sons. That left American Financial as 
     mostly an insurance and financial services company.
       He lost his stake in Chiquita in 2002 when that company 
     emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy. In 2004, Lindner, his 
     family and American Financial reaped nearly $1 billion in 
     stock when they sold Cincinnati's Provident Financial Group 
     Inc. to Cleveland-based National City Corp.
       The moves consolidated the business around safer insurance 
     businesses. Lindner also transferred tens of millions of 
     dollars to his three sons and their families, solidifying for 
     generations a wealth that he never enjoyed growing up.


                         Starting from scratch

       Born April 22, 1919, in Dayton, Ohio, Carl Henry Lindner 
     Jr. was the firstborn of a modest dairyman and his wife, 
     Clara.
       Lindner quit high school to help in his father's Norwood 
     dairy store. Along with his father, he and his brothers 
     Robert and Richard, and sister Dorothy, built it into United 
     Dairy Farmers, a chain of dairy and convenience stores.
       When the family founded what now is UDF on Montgomery Road 
     in Norwood in 1940, the first day's sales amounted to $8.28.
       Lindner often talked about the modest surroundings of his 
     childhood, noting more than once that he picked up dates in 
     an ice-cream truck.
       Robert Lindner's family eventually took control of UDF, and 
     Richard Lindner became sole owner of the Thriftway 
     supermarket chain before selling it to Winn-Dixie Stores.
       Lindner married the former Ruth Wiggeringloh of Norwood in 
     1942. They divorced seven years later with no children. He 
     then married the former Edyth Bailey in 1951, and they have 
     three sons who all went into the family business: Carl III, 
     Craig and Keith.
       Lindner cautiously entered the savings-and-loan and 
     insurance business, founding his flagship company American 
     Financial Corp. in 1959. In the early 1970s the company 
     gained control of Great American Insurance, which would 
     become its chief operating business.
       Throughout the 1970s and 1980s the company bought and sold 
     companies in a variety of industries. Lindner took the 
     company private in 1981 and released little financial 
     information to the public, but in 1995 the company sold stock 
     to public shareholders under the new umbrella of American 
     Financial Group Inc.
       In 2003, Keith Lindner left American Financial to 
     concentrate on the family's charitable pursuits. In 2004 Carl 
     and Craig Lindner were named co-CEOs of the company while 
     Carl Lindner Jr. remained chairman.
       Lindner was a conservative icon, lobbying against Robert 
     Mapplethorpe's 1990 exhibit at the Contemporary Arts Center 
     here and funding the Cincinnati Hills Christian Academy.
       But he was pragmatic as well, contributing more than $1 
     million to Democratic President Bill Clinton during Chiquita 
     Brands' battle over European banana quotas. He was well known 
     as one of the biggest givers in the country to both political 
     parties.


                             The good life

       Lindner developed a taste for the good life, including a 
     sprawling home in Indian Hill and nearly a dozen Rolls-Royce 
     automobiles--with the trademark ``CHL'' license plate--that 
     he drove himself well into his 80s.
       He also owned a home in the exclusive Ocean Reef community 
     of North Key Largo, Fla. There, he entertained lavishly, 
     including hosting former President George Bush in the early 
     1990s.
       Lindner traveled around the country in his own private jet. 
     He dined often at exclusive restaurants like the Maisonette 
     or the Waterfront--where he was an investor--and also became 
     a regular at Trio in Kenwood.
       Lindner received nearly every award Cincinnati has to 
     offer, including induction into Junior Achievement's Greater 
     Cincinnati Business Hall of Fame in 1992 and the Great Living 
     Cincinnatian award in 1994.
       He was also on the board of directors of Citizens for 
     Decency through Law, an anti-pornography group headed by 
     American Financial co-founder and one-time Executive Vice 
     President Charles Keating.
       Among numerous awards and honors throughout his career, 
     Lindner was named Man of the Year of the United Jewish Appeal 
     in 1978 and received the Friars Club Centennial Award in 
     1985. He was awarded an honorary doctorate by UC in 1985 and 
     by Xavier University in 1991.


                       Services not scheduled yet

       Lindner's family has not yet scheduled memorial or funeral 
     services.
       American Financial Group, where Lindner was chairman, said 
     Tuesday that the family had requested memorial gifts be made 
     to Kenwood Baptist Church.
       Lindner is survived by wife Edyth, sons Carl III, Craig and 
     Keith, 12 grandchildren and five great-grandchildren.

  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


Amendments Nos. 859, 892, 893, as Modified; 805, as Modified; 890, 918, 
                     and 912, as Modified, En Bloc

  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be 
called up, reported by number, and considered en bloc: Senator Portman, 
No. 859; Senator McCain, No. 892; Senator Cantwell, No. 893, as 
modified, with the changes that are at the desk; Senator Cochran, No. 
805, as modified, with the changes at the desk; Senator

[[Page 15974]]

Burr, No. 890; Senator Inouye, No. 918; and Senator Kyl, No. 912, as 
modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendments by number.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for Mr. Portman, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 859.
       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for Mr. McCain, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 892.
       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for Ms. Cantwell, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 893, as modified.
       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for Mr. Cochran, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 805, as modified.
       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for Mr. Burr, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 890.
       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for Mr. Inouye, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 918.
       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for Mr. Kyl, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 912, as modified.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 859

(Purpose: To strike a section relating to the approval of projects that 
           include beam rail elements and terminal sections)

       Strike section 125 of title I of division C.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 892

    (Purpose: To provide additional flexibility for the closing or 
                relocation of Rural Development offices)

       On page 70, line 7, insert ``or that the closing or 
     relocation would result in cost savings'' after ``delivery''.


                     AMENDMENT NO. 893, AS MODIFIED

 (Purpose: To direct the National Aquatic Animal Health Task Force to 
 assess the risk Infectious Salmon Anemia poses to wild Pacific salmon 
             and the coastal economies which rely on them)

       On page 108, between lines 22 and 23, insert the following:
       Sec. 114. (a) Report to Congress.--Not later than 6 months 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the National 
     Aquatic Animal Health Task Force shall submit to the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 
     Representatives a report of the findings of the research 
     objectives described in subsection (b).
       (b) Research and Surveillance.--The National Aquatic Animal 
     Health Task Force shall establish Infectious Salmon Anemia 
     research objectives, in collaboration the with the Government 
     of Canada, and Federal, State, and tribal governments, 
     including the Department of Fish and Wildlife of Washington 
     and the Department of Fish and Game of Alaska, to assess--
       (1) the prevalence of Infectious Salmon Anemia in both wild 
     and aquaculture salmonid populations throughout Alaska, 
     Washington, Oregon, California, and Idaho;
       (2) genetic susceptibility by population and species;
       (3) susceptibility of populations to Infectious Salmon 
     Anemia from geographic and oceanographic factors;
       (4) potential transmission pathways between infectious 
     Canadian sockeye and uninfected salmonid populations in 
     United States waters;
       (5) management strategies to rapidly respond to potential 
     Infectious Salmon Anemia outbreaks in both wild and 
     aquaculture populations, including securing the water 
     supplies at conservation hatcheries to protect hatchery fish 
     from exposure to the Infectious Salmon Anemia virus present 
     in incoming surface water;
       (6) potential economic impacts of Infectious Salmon Anemia;
       (7) any role foreign salmon farms may have in spreading 
     Infectious Salmon Anemia to wild populations;
       (8) the identity of any potential Federal, State, tribal, 
     and international research partners;
       (9) available baseline data, including baseline data 
     available from a collaborating entity; and
       (10) other Infectious Salmon Anemia research priorities, as 
     determined by the Task Force.


                     AMENDMENT NO. 805, AS MODIFIED

     (Purpose: To set aside certain funding for the construction, 
acquisition, or improvement of fossil-fueled electric generating plants 
               that utilize carbon sequestration systems)

       On page 49, line 15, before the period at the end insert 
     ``: Provided, That up to $2,000,000,000 may be used for the 
     construction, acquisition, or improvement of fossil-fueled 
     electric generating plants (whether new or existing) that 
     utilize carbon sequestration systems''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 890

(Purpose: To improve the transparency and accountability of the FDA in 
  order to encourage regulatory certainty and innovation on behalf of 
                          America's patients)

       On page 62, line 17, strike the period and insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That not later than 90 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services shall submit to Congress a report 
     that discloses, with respect to all drugs, devices, and 
     biological products approved, cleared, or licensed under the 
     Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act or the Public Health 
     Service Act during calendar year 2011, including such drugs, 
     devices, and biological products so approved, cleared, or 
     licensed using funds made available under this Act: (1) the 
     average number of calendar days that elapsed from the date 
     that drug applications (including any supplements) were 
     submitted to such Secretary under section 505 of the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355) until the date 
     that the drugs were approved under such section 505; (2) the 
     average number of calendar days that elapsed from the date 
     that applications for device clearance (including any 
     supplements) under section 510(k) of such Act (21 U.S.C. 
     360(k)) or for premarket approval (including any supplements) 
     under section 515 of such Act (21 U.S.C. 360e) were submitted 
     to such Secretary until the date that the devices were 
     cleared under such section 510(k) or approved under such 
     section 515; and (3) the average number of calendar days that 
     elapsed from the date that biological license applications 
     (including any supplements) were submitted to such Secretary 
     under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     262) until the date that the biological products were 
     licensed under such section 351.''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 918

  (Purpose: To strike provisions related to the Commission on Wartime 
   Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese Descent)

       Beginning on page 197, strike line 9 and all that follows 
     through page 209, line 2, and insert the following:
       Sec. 541.  The amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by title IV under the heading ``Commission on 
     Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of 
     Japanese Descent'' is hereby reduced by $1,700,000.


                     AMENDMENT NO. 912, AS MODIFIED

  (Purpose: To increase funding for the Southwest border enforcement)

       On page 117, line 16, strike ``$1,101,041,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,111,041,000; of which not to exceed $10,000,000 shall be 
     available for necessary expenses for increased deputy 
     marshals and staff related to Southwest border enforcement 
     until September 30, 2012;''.
       On page 117, line 23, strike ``$12,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$20,250,000, of which $8,250,000 shall be available for 
     detention upgrades at Federal courthouses located in the 
     Southwest border region''.
       On page 191, line 20, after the semicolon, insert ``and an 
     additional $25,000,000 shall be permanently rescinded;''.

  Mr. DURBIN. I believe the Senate is ready to act on these amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendments, en bloc.
  The amendments were agreed to en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


                     Amendment No. 893, as Modified

  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, in that en bloc group of amendments 
was an important amendment, amendment No. 893, as modified, that was 
sponsored by my colleagues from the Northwest--obviously myself, 
Senator Murray, Senator Wyden, Senator Merkley, Senator Boxer, and 
Senator Feinstein. We thought it was very important that this amendment 
pass tonight because scientists are calling it a disease emergency; 
that is, that the Pacific Northwest wild salmon might be threatened by 
a virus that has already decimated fish farm salmon from around the 
world.
  So we want to see, first of all, important scientific questions 
answered about the impacts of this virus, and the threat they pose to 
Pacific Northwest salmon. Second, we want to make sure there is an 
aggressive management plan and an effective rapid response plan to deal 
with the threat of this virus. And, third, we want to make sure we are 
protecting the wild salmon and the important economy that goes with it.
  I know many people know the Northwest is known for a healthy salmon 
population, but this salmon population is also an economy for us. It is 
tens of thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars as it 
relates to our economy. So being able to detect this

[[Page 15975]]

virus and make sure we are assessing the potential threat to the wild 
salmon population is something we want to see happen immediately.
  This makes sure the task force, which is a joint task force already 
in place between NOAA and the USDA, works effectively in a very short 
time period to make sure we are getting this accurate assessment.
  As I mentioned, this virus in the farm fish population around the 
world--in Chile and other places--has decimated salmon. We cannot risk 
having this impact the Pacific Northwest wild salmon. So we need 
answers quickly from the scientific community. We need an action plan 
immediately. And we need to make sure we are formulating a rapid 
response as to what to do if we do detect this virus is spreading, with 
the potential impact we have seen in other areas.
  I thank my colleagues for making sure this amendment was adopted 
tonight. I know Senator Murkowski had planned earlier to talk about 
this. I want to thank Senator Hutchison from Texas for helping us move 
this along in the process.
  I hope now, as we move this legislation, we will also get the 
cooperation from NOAA and Secretary Lubchenco and others, and those at 
NMFS, to make sure we are responding very rapidly to this very serious, 
what people have called the scientific need to get these questions 
answered as soon as possible.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Amendments Nos. 898, 809, and 806

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
amendments, which have been cleared by the managers of both sides be 
agreed to: Rubio, 898; Thune, 809; and Hutchison, 806.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 898, 809, and 806) were agreed to, as follows:


                           amendment no. 898

 (Purpose: To require an evaluation of the Gulf Coast Claims Facility)

       On page 153, after line 24, add the following:

     SEC. 218. EVALUATION OF GULF COAST CLAIMS FACILITY.

       The Attorney General shall identify an independent auditor 
     to evaluate the Gulf Coast Claims Facility.


                           amendment no. 809

(Purpose: To authorize States to be reimbursed for expenditures made in 
reliance of a grant erroneously awarded pursuant to sections 4101(c)(4) 
                     and 4126 of Public Law 109-59)

       On page 251, strike line 8 and insert ``agreement, shall 
     not be required to repay grant amounts received in error 
     under such sections and, in addition, shall be reimbursed for 
     core or expanded deployment expenditures such States made 
     before the date of the enactment of this Act in reliance on a 
     grant awarded in error under such sections.''.


                           amendment no. 806

 (Purpose: To amend the requirements for the designation of Moving-To-
                             Work agencies)

       On page 365, line 8, strike ``10,000'' and insert 
     ``20,000''.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today I wish to say a few words about the 
bill that we are currently considering and, in particular, a very 
worthwhile program funded by this bill that I believe is critical to 
moving our Nation forward.
  One very important agency funded by the fiscal year 2012 Commerce-
Justice-Science bill that has not been getting much attention in the 
debate this week is NASA. Senators Nelson, Hutchison, Rockefeller, and 
others worked incredibly hard to get a balanced reauthorization bill 
passed last year, and I commend them for their hard work in getting it 
signed into law. One aspect of that bill that I worked particularly 
hard on was ensuring that we are doing what we can to advance NASA's 
mission while also promoting the development of the commercial space 
sector. In negotiations on that authorization bill, Senator Nelson and 
I arrived at what I believe is a fair compromise that will allow us to 
pursue advances in the commercial cargo and commercial crew fields and 
harness the innovation and cost savings that the private sector can 
provide. In a recently released study, in fact, NASA estimated that the 
Falcon 9 launch vehicle being developed by the private sector company 
SpaceX will cost less than half what it would cost for NASA to develop 
the launch vehicle itself. In the current fiscal climate, it is 
imperative that we partner with commercial companies to pursue the 
cost-effective innovation that can only be achieved through the 
competition that exists in the private sector. Supporting development 
of the commercial space industry will also help create steady, well-
paying jobs and spur economic growth--not only in urban tech corridors, 
but also in more rural areas where launch facilities are located such 
as the Wallops Island facility in my home State of Virginia.
  By appropriating funding at the authorized level of $500 million for 
the commercial crew development, CCDEV, program, I believe the fiscal 
year 2012 Commerce-Justice-Science bill honors the commitment we made 
in the authorization bill to move forward in that field. I commend 
Senator Mikulski for her leadership in that regard, and I am excited by 
the opportunities to come. While NASA develops our next heavy lift 
vehicle and a host of other important research duties, the private 
sector has the capability to quickly and cost-effectively deliver 
vehicles for our astronauts to access the International Space Station, 
ISS, and minimize our dependence on Russia for those trips. Given what 
we will be paying Russia for those trips to the ISS, there is the 
potential that we can actually save money in the long run by investing 
in commercial space to develop a competitive vehicle, rather than 
continuing to pay the Russians for seats on their vehicles.
  Moving forward with the CCDEV program will also result in additional 
opportunities for development at the NASA Wallops Flight Facility, the 
Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority, and the Mid-Atlantic 
Regional Spaceport. I have supported the Wallops facilities in Virginia 
since my time as Governor, and from my recent visits, I can attest that 
they are making tremendous progress in developing their launch 
infrastructure. Providing funding for the CCDEV program at authorized 
levels, as we have done in this bill, will help us drive competition in 
the commercial space industry and will provide opportunities for 
facilities such as Wallops to further develop their launch 
infrastructure and provide steady, high-wage employment in areas that 
sorely need it.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to speak about amendment No. 
855, which I filed with Senators Coburn, Gillibrand, Lautenberg, and 
Brown.
  This amendment would require the Secretary of Agriculture to enforce 
adjusted gross income limits on farm subsidies that were established in 
the last farm bill by:
  Pursuing thousands of individuals flagged by the IRS as potentially 
illegal recipients of farm subsidies; reclaiming subsidies from 
millionaires and other illegal recipients; and auditing subsidy 
recipients who claim they are in compliance with income limits but 
whose IRS tax returns suggest otherwise.
  I do not intend to ask for a vote on this amendment at this time, but 
I would like to explain to my colleagues why I am calling upon the USDA 
to more vigorously enforce the adjusted gross income limits in law.
  In the 2008 farm bill, Congress capped the income of farm bill 
subsidy payment recipients at $500,000 for non-farm income and $750,000 
for farm income.
  The limits were imposed because there had been increasing concerns 
that direct payments, countercyclical payments, and marketing loan 
benefits had been going to corporate agriculture and millionaires.
  These subsidy programs are designed to provide a safety net to 
farmers

[[Page 15976]]

whose industry suffers from dramatic swings in prices from year to 
year.
  Congress intended to prevent individuals who could provide their own 
safety net from drawing funds they didn't need from taxpayers.
  The final enacted limits--$500,000 for non-farm income and $750,000 
for farm income--prevent payments only to farmers and absentee farm-
owners who are doing extremely well financially.
  Less than 2 percent of Americans make this much money in a given 
year.
  And Congress applied the caps flexibly.
  Income can be averaged over a 3-year period, standard income tax 
deductions apply, and farmers can deduct their expenses related to 
their entire farm operation.
  Congress gave the U.S. Department of Agriculture clear direction to 
investigate and enforce the income caps.
  But the USDA has been very slow to enforce this provision.
  First, USDA did not thoroughly review subsidy recipients to prevent 
illegal payments from going out the door in 2009, 2010, or 2011, even 
though the farm bill instructed that ``the Secretary shall deny the 
issuance of applicable payments and benefits'' to farmers who fail to 
certify compliance.
  Second, the USDA has not yet aggressively pursued thousands of 
payment recipients that the IRS has identified as likely violators.
  Third, the USDA has not conducted a single audit of a subsidy 
recipient, even though the farm bill states:

       The Secretary shall establish statistically valid 
     procedures under which the Secretary shall conduct targeted 
     audits of such persons or legal entities as the Secretary 
     determines are most likely to exceed the limitations . . .

  Finally, USDA has made no attempt to identify those who lied about or 
concealed their income in order to receive subsidy payments. Such an 
act would constitute fraud against the U.S. government.
  USDA has taken the initial step by working with the IRS to identify 
potentially illegal payments in 2009 and 2010, and I commend them for 
this action.
  The preliminary results of their investigation are staggering:
  The IRS ``flagged'' 13,000 individuals in USDA's database with tax 
returns that suggest they exceed congressionally mandated income caps.
  When USDA reached out to 200 randomly selected ``flagged'' 
individuals, more than 15 percent returned the money--with no questions 
asked.
  Another 30 percent of those contacted by USDA didn't bother to 
respond, suggesting a lack of respect among payment recipients for 
USDA's enforcement ability.
  This preliminary effort demonstrates that enforcing this law is both 
fair and fiscally responsible.
  Thousands of recipients could be receiving tens, even hundreds, of 
millions of Federal dollars each year, illegally.
  Wealthy farmers--and absent farm owners--are still claiming payments 
from the farm bill's safety net programs, and the USDA is not doing 
enough to stop them.
  Some of my colleagues believe we should wait for the next farm bill 
to address this problem. But I doubt they recognize that failing to 
enforce this provision wastes this much money.
  Furthermore, the next farm bill is likely to include some form of 
payment regime, as every farm bill has for more than 50 years.
  It might not be direct payments, but some form of subsidy payment 
regime is expected to remain.
  Vigorous income limit enforcement makes the farm safety net stronger, 
not weaker. It assures that funding is available for those who need it, 
even in a time of severe cuts.
  Our constituents are suffering through the longest economic downturn 
in a generation. And government resources to help those truly in need 
are dwindling.
  And yet despite congressional direction to conduct audits and 
oversight of fraudulent payments to individuals already making hundreds 
of thousands of dollars per year, the Department of Agriculture has not 
done enough to ensure that our limited resources are being spent 
wisely.
  I urge our colleagues to join me in speaking out about this issue. I 
urge them to demand that the USDA enforce the law.
  We need to send a clear message that fraudulent claims and subsidies 
to the rich are unacceptable.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, though I support the goal of sensible 
reform to the Federal criminal justice system, I opposed the Webb 
amendment, No. 750, for several reasons.
  First, I am concerned that the National Criminal Justice Commission 
created by this amendment would not be required to adopt unanimous 
recommendations. As a result, it is likely that this commission would 
fracture into partisan camps instead of working toward the types of 
bipartisan consensus recommendations that would truly help solve the 
problems facing our justice system. The experience of the 9/11 
Commission is instructive. Despite the widely divergent policy views of 
the ten 9/11 Commission members, they came together to produce a 567-
page report containing 37 recommendations--without a single voice of 
dissent. As a result, Congress passed nearly all of that commission's 
recommendations within 2 years. I am not confident that a nonunanimous 
National Criminal Justice Commission will have the same success.
  Additionally, I believe the broad jurisdiction of the National 
Criminal Justice Commission could lead it to examine highly 
controversial policy areas better left to the elected branches of 
government. This would create an opportunity for certain interest 
groups to pressure the commission to make divisive recommendations on 
issues such as narcotics legalization and the repeal of mandatory 
minimum sentences. While these interest groups may believe that their 
arguments have merit, they should make these arguments to their elected 
representatives, rather than unelected commission members. The Congress 
and the House and Senate Judiciary Committees are the proper venue in 
which to examine controversial criminal justice policy issues.
  Furthermore, I have strong federalism concerns with the commission's 
jurisdiction to make recommendations concerning State and local 
criminal justice systems. Though Congress has the legitimate authority 
to appropriate funds to examine the federal criminal justice system, it 
does not have the authority to order the same examination at the State 
and local level. In my home State of Texas, the State government 
undertook sweeping reforms to its criminal justice system that will 
save taxpayers billions of dollars. While I am proud of this 
achievement, I do not believe that the Federal Government should push 
other States to do the same thing. If another State looks at the 
success of the Texas reforms, but decides not to enact them, then that 
is the choice reserved to them by the United States Constitution. 
Federal taxpayer dollars should not be used to interfere with this 
decision.
  Given the major concerns I have noted, it is almost certain that the 
money appropriated by this amendment would amount to little actual 
change in the criminal justice system. In fact, the proposed National 
Criminal Justice Commission, in its current form, would likely only 
lead to more partisan bickering. Given the financial state of the 
Nation, I believe that it would be unwise to spend $5 million on a 
commission whose recommendations will likely be so divisive and 
controversial that they will never even be acted upon by Congress.
  I believe that we should have a serious discussion about the federal 
criminal justice system and reducing out-of-control incarceration 
rates. Unfortunately, this amendment would not advance that goal. For 
this reason, I voted against the Webb amendment No. 750.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, earlier this afternoon we voted on a 
good government proposal that would have improved accountability for 
taxpayer dollars. That amendment focused on grants awarded by the 
Department of Justice. Soon we will be voting to repeal another good 
government measure; that is, the provision to ensure

[[Page 15977]]

that government contractors pay their taxes by requiring that 
governments withhold 3 percent from payments to contractors as 
prepayment for their taxes. The provision was enacted in direct 
response to a series of Government Accountability Office, or GAO, 
reports about Federal contractors not paying their taxes.
  I have always said that taxpayers should pay what they owe--not a 
penny more, and not a penny less. And several GAO reports indicate that 
information reporting and upfront withholding significantly improve 
compliance. In fact, that is why the Federal Government withholds taxes 
from individual paychecks.
  Since the provision was enacted, I have heard repeatedly about the 
costs of implementation. I am disappointed by the misinformation that 
has been spread by the various outside groups--just like the ones that 
lobbied against my Justice Department grant amendment today.
  Specifically, one fictitious estimate by an outside group states that 
the cost to implement this provision is $75 billion. There is another 
made-up estimate that it would cost the Department of Defense $17 
billion to implement this provision.
  I have a very long history, over 30 years in the Senate, of doing 
oversight of various Federal agencies. I cut my teeth in oversight by 
combating waste, fraud, and abuse at the Defense Department. I knew 
both the 75 billion and 17 billion numbers were bogus the first time I 
heard them.
  The Congressional Budget Office, or the CBO, the nonpartisan, 
objective scorekeeper for Congress, has estimated the cost of 
implementation to the Federal Government, including the Defense 
Department, to be $85 million over 5 years.
  Mr. President, I am a firm believer in reviewing laws that aren't 
working. This provision never even had a chance to work. However, I 
have heard from small business owners across Iowa about the burdens the 
withholding provision would impose on them, particularly with the 
economy still being in the dumps.
  For that reason, I support repealing this provision. My preference 
would have been to fix the provision so that small businesses and State 
and local governments would be exempted. However, that would have 
likely created even more complexity.
  Let me just say that, despite the rhetoric, large corporations would 
not have been impacted in the same way that small businesses would have 
been.
  They, especially defense and Medicare contractors, are not operating 
on a cash flow basis or on profit margins of 3 percent. They are just 
riding the coattails of small businesses in pushing for repeal of this 
provision.
  As we proceed to vote on repeal of this provision, let me remind my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle that tax cheats are a very real 
problem. Tax delinquent contractors continue to be awarded Federal 
contracts, despite the administration's efforts to clamp down on 
awarding contracts to them. The most recent example is the award of 
stimulus contracts.
  A GAO report from May of just this year indicated that $24 billion in 
Federal contracts were awarded to contractors who owed more than $750 
million of back taxes. This is not chump change.
  In the past year or so, Members of the House and Senate have 
supported measures to ensure that Federal employees pay their taxes. 
Well, Federal contractors should not be treated any differently. The 
country is in the midst of an unprecedented fiscal crisis. Tax 
increases are off the table so we need to ensure that we are collecting 
every dollar that is owed to the Federal Government.
  Senator Baucus and I continue to work on an alternative to 3 percent 
withholding. This alternative would prohibit the Federal Government 
from awarding contracts to tax cheats.
  In order to assist contracting agencies in identifying tax cheats, we 
would enable those agencies to check a contractor's tax status with the 
Internal Revenue Service. This new approach would be much narrower in 
focus than the 3 percent withholding provision. It should only impact 
the bad actors. When we have an opportunity to consider this provision, 
I would hope that my colleagues would support us in enacting it. 
Preventing tax cheating should be a bipartisan issue.
  I ask unanimous consent that the CBO estimate be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record,  as follows:

 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE--CHANGE IN AMOUNTS SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION ARISING FROM SECTION 511 OF THE TAX INCREASE PREVENTION AND RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2005
                                                         [In millions of dollars by fiscal year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          2012             2013             2014             2015             2016            Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Implementation Costs:
    Nonrecurring..................................               35                0                0                0                0               35
    Recurring.....................................               10               10               10               10               10               50
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total.....................................               45               10               10               10               10               85
Costs to Federal Contractors:
    Nonrecurringa.................................            7,500              400              400              400              400            9,100
    Recurringb....................................  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............  ...............
        Financing.................................              550              550              550              550              550            2,750
        Reporting.................................              100              100              100              100              100              500
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Total.................................            8,150            1,050            1,050            1,050            1,050           12,350
 
Total Costs.......................................            8,195            1,060            1,060            1,060            1,060           12,435
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: Congressional Budget Office, Department of Defense, Federal Procurement Data System.
a. Implementation costs of federal contractors are not directly billable to federal agencies. CBO expects that such costs will eventually be passed on
  to federal agencies in the form of higher prices for goods and services, although not necessarily in the same year that those costs are incurred.
b. Ongoing implementation costs arise from regular turnover of federal contractors. New vendors will need to modify their accounting systems to provide
  goods and services to federal agencies.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to thank Chairman Kohl and 
Senator Blunt for their hard work on this bill. They had to make tough 
choices because of their tight allocation. I commend them for the 
choices they made and agree with them. They have my full support for 
this bill.
  I especially want to thank them for increasing the Food and Drug 
Administration's budget. They provided $2.5 billion which is $50 
million over this year's funding level. Twenty-five cents for every 
dollar spent by consumers is for FDA-regulated products, over $1 
trillion worth of goods bought each year.
  This funding increase will strengthen our food safety infrastructure 
so that the FDA can meet its increased responsibilities. It gives the 
FDA new defense capabilities to hold imported and domestic foods to the 
same standards. It also will help Federal, State, and local officials 
prevent and more efficiently detect food safety problems. Finally, it 
increases the FDA and State and local workforce capacity to prevent 
deadly outbreaks.
  Employees at the FDA are on the front lines every day to stop food 
safety outbreaks in their tracks and get unsafe foods off of 
supermarket shelves. We rely on the FDA more than ever to make sure the 
drugs and medical devices we depend upon are safe and effective.
  I have been a longtime fighter for the FDA. I have fought for years 
for the right facilities and the right resources. I will continue to 
fight for these hard-working employees. This increase will help the FDA 
continue to be the gold

[[Page 15978]]

standard in upholding drug, device, cosmetic, and food safety.
  They also make nutrition assistance programs a priority, which is so 
important in these difficult economic times. For Women, Infants and 
Children, they provide $6.6 billion. This funding level will meet the 
needs of low-income pregnant women, infants, and children under 5 by 
providing nutritious foods, dietary supplements, healthy eating 
information, and medical referrals.
  This bill is also very important to Maryland. It supports the hard-
working Federal employees at FDA and the Beltsville Agricultural 
Research Center. Headquartered in Silver Spring, MD, FDA employs 9,400 
people, while BARC, located in Beltsville, MD, employs 975 Federal 
employees, including 250 scientists. BARC is the flagship campus of the 
Agricultural Research Service. It conducts cutting-edge research to 
develop and transfer solutions to our Nation's most pressing 
agricultural problems. This research is impacting not just farmers but 
every American as it relates to food safety, nutrition, and obesity. 
They keep BARC funded at existing funding levels and protect these 
jobs.
  They also provide $16.5 million for farmers market nutrition 
programs. This program gives WIC recipients vouchers to use at farmers 
markets and roadside stands to buy locally grown fruits and vegetables. 
This program helps low-income women and children as well as our local 
farmers. In 2009, Maryland distributed $403,000 vouchers to 42,000 WIC 
clients. This also helped 260 Maryland farmers sell their crops.
  In addition, Maryland is home to two land grant institutions: 
University of Maryland at College Park and University of Maryland 
Eastern Shore. They rejected the House cuts to land grant university 
research and extension programs and keep them in good standing. These 
programs support food and agriculture research, provide peer-reviewed, 
competitively awarded grants, help attract top-notch scientists, fund 
youth programs, including 4-H, and reach out and solve community needs 
for small farmers and business owners.
  Maryland's No. 1 industry is agriculture. We have both the 
traditional industry sectors and nontraditional: everything from 
poultry, to dairy to organic farms and vineyards and a specialty 
nursery industry. This bill supports these farmers and small business 
owners, but it also supports all Americans by protecting our public 
health and safety when it comes to our food supply, drugs, and medical 
devices.
  Mr. President, I also wish to thank Chairman Murray and Senator 
Collins for their hard work on this bill. I say to the Senators, you 
worked together in a bipartisan way and with collegiality. You had a 
tight allocation and had to make tough choices. But you did an 
outstanding job, and you have my full support for this bill.
  I support this bill because it is a jobs bill. It provides formula 
funding to the States for our highways, byways, and subways. According 
to the U.S. Department of Transportation, every $1 million spent on 
transportation creates 13 jobs.
  This bill will hire the construction workers and engineers to widen 
our highways and build new bridges. The bill also provides $550 million 
for TIGER Grants, the discretionary grant program begun in the economic 
recovery bill. This competitive grant program funds road, rail, 
transit, and port projects.
  This bill provides nearly $16 billion for the Federal Aviation 
Administration, the current year funding level. This funding supports 
our air traffic controllers, air safety personnel, and construction 
jobs at our airports.
  This bill also provides funding to maintain the Maritime Security 
Program. This program maintains 60 U.S. flagships, crewed by U.S. 
citizens, to service both commercial and national security needs.
  This bill provides $120 million for Choice Neighborhoods. Choice 
Neighborhoods uses the lessons of HOPE VI. It builds upon them to reach 
more communities and turn ZIP Codes of poverty into healthy, vibrant 
communities.
  It also provides much-needed funding for veterans' housing, a total 
of $75 million, to get them the housing help they need. Our Nation owes 
our vets a debt of gratitude, and I will keep fighting to show that 
gratitude not just with words, but with deeds.
  For Maryland, this bill guarantees $750 million in Federal 
transportation formula funding. Within this amount, Maryland receives 
$600 million for highways and $150 million for transit. It also 
supports 9,750 jobs. About half of Maryland's highway and transit 
capital projects are funded with these Federal dollars.
  In addition, this bill funds Metro here in our Nation's capital, 
providing $150 million for safety improvements, including new rail 
cars, track, and signal upgrades. It also guarantees Metro's $228 
million in Federal formula funding for capital improvements. This 
funding combined supports nearly 5,000 public and private sector jobs.
  Infrastructure and housing investments are vital to sustain economic 
growth and create jobs. I support Senate action on multiyear 
transportation and aviation authorization bills and infrastructure bank 
legislation. But agreement and passage of these bills is going to take 
some time. This appropriations bill is a jobs bill we can pass now to 
get Americans back to work in the near term.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I previously filed committee allocations 
and budgetary aggregates pursuant to section 106 of the Budget Control 
Act of 2011. I am further adjusting some of those levels, specifically 
the allocation to the Committee on Appropriations for fiscal year 2012 
and the budgetary aggregates for fiscal year 2012.
  Section 101 of the Budget Control Act allows for various adjustments 
to the statutory limits on discretionary spending, while section 106(d) 
allows the chairman of the Budget Committee to make revisions to 
allocations, aggregates, and levels consistent with those adjustments. 
Senator Lautenberg has offered Senate amendment No. 836 to the 
appropriations bill for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and related agencies. That amendment includes $365 
million in 2012 funding that is designated for disaster relief pursuant 
to the Budget Control Act of 2011. CBO estimates that budget authority 
would result in $18 million in outlays in 2012.
  In addition, Senator Gillibrand has offered Senate amendment No. 869 
to the Agriculture appropriations bill. That amendment includes $110 
million in 2012 funding that is designated for disaster relief pursuant 
to the Budget Control Act of 2011. CBO estimates that budget authority 
would result in $44 million in outlays in 2012.
  Therefore, in total, I am revising the allocation to the Committee on 
Appropriations and to the budgetary aggregates by $475 million in 
budget authority and $62 million in outlays.
  I ask unanimous consent that the following tables detailing the 
changes to the allocation to the Committee on Appropriations and the 
budgetary aggregates be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 DETAIL ON ADJUSTMENTS TO FISCAL YEAR 2012 ALLOCATIONS TO COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 106 OF
                                         THE BUDGET CONTROL ACT OF 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Overseas
         $s in billions               Program        Disaster        Emergency      contingency        Total
                                     integrity        relief                        operations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendments--Lautenberg SA 836 &
 Gillibrand SA 869:
    Budget Authority............           0.000           0.475           0.000           0.000           0.475
    Outlays.....................           0.000           0.062           0.000           0.000           0.062
Memorandum 1: Breakdown of Above
 Adjustments by Category:
    Security Budget Authority...           0.000           0.000           0.000           0.000           0.000

[[Page 15979]]

 
    Nonsecurity Budget Authority           0.000           0.475           0.000           0.000           0.475
    General Purpose Outlays.....           0.000           0.062           0.000           0.000           0.062
Memorandum 2: Cumulative
 Adjustments (Includes
 Previously Filed Adjustments):
    Budget Authority............           0.893           8.588           0.000         126.544         136.025
    Outlays.....................           0.774           1.669          -0.007          63.568          66.004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                                                  

                          ____________________